|
August 12, 2005
Indymedia offers better coverage than MSM!
I don't like to dwell on stuff like this unless I can't help it. So I tried to ignore the pathetic picture in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer of one Cindy Sheehan, who believes that she can end the Iraq War by meeting with President Bush. I looked at her picture (another one at Drudge) and found myself suspecting that her purpose might not be to reason with Bush and present logical arguments against the war (as is claimed), but, rather, to scold him. While the newspapers and the MSM have portrayed her as a grieving mother with legitimate questions for the president, the new reports have been rather long on descriptions of the mother and her plight, but short on the specific details of her questions. To find these details, I had to look in places other than the Inquirer and the New York Times. According to Indymedia, as of August 7 (the date national media attention was drawn to her visit to Crawford), Ms. Sheehan lists the following questions for President Bush: Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq, is holding vigil in Crawford, Texas until she gets a meeting with George Bush. She has some simple questions to ask him: “Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?” She also has a clear demand: “Honor our sacrifices by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from a war based on lies and deceptions.”I agree. These are simple questions. And the leading question, once again, is Why did you kill my son? Regardless of whether Bush should be forced to answer these questions (or submit to a Nuremburg-style tribunal), what I'd like to know is why weren't all three, very simple questions listed in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer? The primary question (why Bush killed her son) was dropped entirely along with the second question, leaving only her third question about whether the Bush daughters have been encouraged to enlist: Sheehan has spent several days talking to reporters, hugging fellow protesters, and taking brief breaks to eat sandwiches and fruit from supporters.I'd say things are getting pretty pathetic when I have to get the full story from Indymedia. This New York Times piece on Sheehan is more than twice as long as the Inquirer's, and, although it calls her case "compelling," also inexplicably fails to mention Ms. Sheehan's most pressing questions. What is going on here? Why is the MSM editing the most important questions which this latest anti-war celebrity wanted to ask? And why is it that only Drudge seems to be reporting this statement from the rest of the Sheehan family? The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. Drudge might be "developing," but is anyone else? Considering the disappearance of the story from Ms. Sheehan's local (Vacaville) newspaper's website, I'd swear the rest of the family's story is being suppressed. Intrigued by all of this intrigue, I began to wonder whether Ms. Sheehan has previously had other questions for Bush, which might also not be getting the attention they deserve. Sure enough, her campaign goes back to at least November of 2004. If you Google the name "Sheehan" along with the phrase "AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE BUSH," and you'll get links to the following widely circulated letter (which turns up at web sites like these): November 4, 2004I understand that this woman feels very strongly about this, but I think most people would characterize her tone as accusatory, argumentative and scolding. (I don't think I need to dwell on the lack of logic in her many assertions, either.) But is it reasonable to expect that by forcing the president to meet with this woman, anything would be accomplished? I know I wouldn't want to meet with her, and if she was my mom, I'd probably want to get as far away from her as humanly possible. But I can't speculate about unknowable matters. What I do know is that once again, the full story is not being reported by the mainstream media. (Am I allowed to thank Indymedia and the various left wing news sites? Or would that be in bad form?)
I think this is something that was bound to happen when the son or daughter of a leftwing Bush-hater volunteered to go to war (and I think we can draw some conclusions about whether or not Casey agreed with his mother's agenda from this) and then did not make it back home.Researching the above further, I found this site which offers a lengthy account of the mission leading to Casey Sheehan's death: First Sgt. Carson reported that “word got around (at Camp War Eagle) fast that the patrol was in trouble.” He said that their public affairs officer, Captain O'Malley, said this:It doesn't appear to me that Casey Sheehan was tricked into going on that mission (or tricked into serving in Iraq) as his mother maintains. If she is mischaracterizing her son's service to his country, I don't see how that honors what he apparently stood for."They had guys who normally don't fight who volunteered to help their buddies. There were guys fighting to get on that convoy."This is substantiated by the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan. She has said that:“And the sergeant said, 'Sheehan, you don't have to go,' because my son was a mechanic.' And Casey said, 'Where my chief goes, I go.' " MORE: And here's Instapunk: This is perversion. And it's time somebody said it out loud. Cindy Sheehan, your son died a hero. Go home now and find some meaning in it that isn't just about you and the politics of those who hate their country. AND MORE: Joe Gandelman thinks that vicious criticism of Cindy Sheehan will create a backlash (which may well be the case). I try to be respectful of everyone, but I think I've shown that the MSM has not presented the full story. At minimum, from what I've seen they've edited out her number one, highly argumentative question about whether Bush "killed" her son. I think her questions to George W. Bush (as well as her November letter) constitute unreasonable scolding, and I do not think it is vicious to say so. UPDATE: Commenter Sigivald provides this link to the family statement in question. And in another story, Mrs. Sheehan has made it clear that she wants more than a meeting with the President; she's demanding that he answer her "questions." "I don't want his compassion or his sympathy, because I know it's not real," Sheehan said. "What I want is answers to my questions."An answer to "Why did you kill my son?" Is it possible for anyone to imagine the public reaction to a question like that had it been asked of FDR during World War II? Were I in President Bush's position, I'd meet with her. (But I don't think she'd like my answers....) MORE: Here's Jon Henke (with whom I'm inclined to agree): Nor should the President entertain every grieving mother or agitated activist demanding an audience with the President. Imagine the downward spiral that would create, with every activist group in the country camping on the White House/Crawford lawn until 2009, at which point they'd be replaced by different activists camping on the White House/(somewhere else) lawns.The politics of this one have been brewing for some time. I just wish the MSM would give us the full story. And how about all the versions of the story? AND MORE: Be sure to check out Darleen Click's posts on Cindy Sheehan. Darleen thinks Sheehan is a "classic cult victim." And Jeff Goldstein has the goods on the so-called "Crawford Peace House." (Frankly, I'm surprised no one's thought to blame HumVee for Casey Sheehan's death; after all Caterpillar has been blamed for the death of "peace" activist Rachel Corrie. Connect the dots, people!) UPDATE (08/14/05): The Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin, in a Sunday editorial, has not only written President Bush's answer to Cindy Sheehan, she has rewritten Sheehan's question: [Sheehan] would want to know why 140,000 U.S. soldiers are stuck in Iraq more than two years after the fall of Baghdad. She would demand answers that go beyond "Freedom is on the march."Huh? What ever happened to question number one -- "Why did you kill my son?" By making up new questions from Ms. Sheehan, and writing new answers for President Bush, Ms. Rubin has relegated the original story to the realm of complete irrelevance. Who needs news, anyway? MORE: Connie du Toit reminded me of something I think most of us tend to forget as we obsess over facts: a lot of other mothers are being forgotten. .... for all the fuss over this one mother, I think we might need to remember the other mothers. Focus away from the mad one and give our time and attention to the others. You know the ones. The ones who say nothing. The ones who, after losing their boys, continue to work with the other families they know—continuing to support the war effort and the families who are shouldering its burdens.We can argue about the facts, and over the accuracy of media coverage, but grief is real -- for Cindy Sheehan and for many others. UPDATE (08/14/05): Via Ann Althouse at InstaPundit, Joe Gandelman now has a much longer post with many links, pro and con. Fair and thorough. (I particularly liked Dean Esmay sharing an Iraqi mother's perspective on this. But my main objection is not to Cindy Sheehan, but to the MSM's increasingly common omission of important facts.) In this case, emotion may be at war with facts. MORE: Speaking of emotional facts, here's Cindy Sheehan, quoted at a speech in Dallas last week by Counterpunch: “And the other thing I want him to tell me is ‘just what was the noble cause Casey died for?’ Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” she exclaimed.Once again, thank God for the left-wing press! But seriously, if she keeps saying stuff like this, people are going to start wondering whether this is all another Karl Rove operation.... UPDATE (08/16/05): I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one to be thinking about FDR ("Is it possible for anyone to imagine the public reaction to a question like that had it been asked of FDR during World War II?"). Via Glenn Reynolds, here's Michael Barone: Question: How much coverage would the press have given a World War II-era Cindy Sheehan who camped outside Hyde Park or Warm Springs demanding to meet with President Roosevelt?Hey, wasn't there a war on?
"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"And they've made this woman a media heroine? Somewhere Karl Rove must be smiling. As is so often the case, James Lileks ought to get the last word: Some people think that any time you argue back, you're Stifling Dissent. For them, merely discussing Ms. Sheehan's views is the rhetorical equivalent of sending her to Abu Ghraib.(Via Glenn Reynolds.) I want to conclude this much-too-long post by asking a very simple question. How can I be "stifling dissent" by wanting to see it reported? MORE: Dave Kopel sees the Sheehan affair as involving a failure of the MSM to engage in simple reporting. Instead, they did their best to sanitize Sheehan. (And now that she's faded from the screen, her full message will remain unreported, in the hope that she'll be remembered as just another ordinary mom who lost a son in Iraq.) posted by Eric on 08.12.05 at 09:20 AM
Comments
Oh, and speaking of Classical Values, remember that there was once a time when a mother would say to her son going off to war: "Come back with your shield or on it." Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 12, 2005 01:22 PM The Reporter appears to still have a story about the parents' email; the URL apparently changed, or it's a slightly different story, but the guts are still there. Sigivald · August 12, 2005 06:26 PM Her two minutes of fame are "up", along with the entire annoying Holloway/Twitty clan. The MSM are nothing-more than pathos-whores...until the next more "compelling" story comes along. It may sell soap, but I have an itchy clicker-finger. Ted B. · August 12, 2005 10:37 PM Piggybacking on Ted B's comment, perhaps Ms. Sheehan can continue her fight for justice on the island of Aruba with Beth Holloway-Twitty. Or perhaps she can continue her protest at the Clinton library, protesting the failure by his administration to arrest Mohammad Atta, whose actions led to the "War on Terror" as it's known now. I just found classicalvalues, and while I'm not big on such things, I do like to express my own values by saying HEEHAW! oneshot762 · August 18, 2005 11:27 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
That screed could well have been written by Lord Pork Pork himself. It has just about every "moonbat" cliche I've ever heard and then some. Sarcastically speaking, I'm sure it'll persuade President Bush, the predominantly Republican Congress, or the majority of the voters to impeach the President and the Vice President and install a puppet of Lord Pork Pork. It certainly would not have persuaded her son, who died to defend his country, not to promote a subversive political agenda.